Codified and un codified constitution U.

K
A written constitution is a formal document defining the nature of the
constitutional settlement, the rules that govern the political system and
the rights of citizens and government in a codified form.[1] All
constitutions provide for the protection of rights and undoubtedly have
common elements. Inevitably there is a strong historical and political
element involved when one refers to a countrys constitution. During the
19th Century, in response to popular revolt or war, many European
countries were forced to draw up constitutions -this gave birth to
constitutions embodying the relationship between the citizen and the
state. Great Britain, however, remained untouched by this revolutionary
wave that had affected much of the Continent. In the absence of a written
constitution, there are two main sources of constitutional law in Britain:
legislation (Acts of Parliament and legislation enacted by ministers etc.)
and the common law (case law and historical documents). The Magna
Carta 1215, The Bill of Rights 1689, The Great Reform Act 1832, and the
1973 membership to the European Economic Community are milestones
in the development of the UK constitution. It should be noted that the
British Constitution has indubitably evolved over a long period of time,
Lord Butler admitting that, it is something we make up as we go along.
Many constitutions seek to avoid a concentration of power in the hands of
any one organ of government by adopting a separation of powers and by
thus vesting legislative power exclusively to the legislature, executive
power in the executive and judicial power in the courts. The concepts of
Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law are pillars of the unwritten
constitution. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty of the UK is often
represented as a unique legal arrangement without parallels in
comparative constitutional law. It is vital to note that no federal system
can exist so long as Parliaments Sovereignty is maintained. Parliamentary
Sovereignty is often seen as an obstacle to the establishment of a codified
constitution. Therefore, most of those who propose a written constitution
envisage constitutional supremacy replacing Parliament and judges being
able to rule Acts of Parliament incompatible with the constitution.
Advantages and Disadvantages of a written and unwritten constitution
Unlike France, the UK does not have a written constitution embodied in a
single document. Historically, the UK has not had one single document
comprising of individual rights and freedoms such as the Dclaration des
Droits 1789. Instead, its citizens have had to rely on statutory protection
or upon judicial protection under common law. The closest thing the UK
has to a Bill of Rights is the Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporates
the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 into domestic law.

Moreover, the UK has a unitary constitution and thus all power rests in
Westminster. The Westminster system of government is therefore not
compatible with a written constitution. There have been since the 1970s
numerous proposals for a codified UK constitution. The proposition is that
the UK should adopt a written constitution explicitly defining the rights of
the citizen and the role of the countrys different governing organs. Whilst
most democracies base their institutions on a written constitution in
practice however, a written constitution does not contain all the rules
upon which government depends. One of the most convincing arguments
for a codified constitution is its accessibility; a single document is easier to
understand and is more accessible by the public. Those who argue that
there is no need for a written constitution often evoke its flexibility and
adaptability to shifting values. It is said that the unwritten UK constitution
can easily adapt to global and national political changes and can therefore
be kept up to date. A stark contrast depicting the rigidity of a written
constitution is that of the US and its repeated attempts to modify the gun
laws by altering the right to bear arms(2nd Amendment). By the same
token, it has also been accentuated that the US model keeps the
Constitution beyond reach of the politicians and interestingly vests power
in judges. However, opponents of an excessively powerful judiciary
accentuate the fact that judges are unelected. Empowering these
unelected officials and allowing them to interpret laws according to their
political views could allow them to strike down legislation they oppose;
some argue that this would indubitably have draconian repercussions.
Many aspects of each system have both their advantages and
disadvantages but ultimately the most imperative element is the
responsible behaviour of the key constitutional players. One is led to ask:
can a French citizen claim to be freer than a UK citizen? Since most people
in Britain and the world are not even aware that the UK has a constitution,
the introduction of a codified constitutional document would serve the
nation well, raising public awareness about the way the government works
and the political systems operation at large. Albeit not impossible,
encapsulating Britains constitutional arrangements in a single document
is nonetheless a Herculean task! Written or unwritten, one thing is for
sure: there is no such thing as a perfect constitution